[Shugart23]

Every once in a while, we will see an insufficient bid after we have opened the bidding. We play a really aggressive weak NT (10 to 12/13) and double-barreled Stayman. While on a driving trip, we discussed maybe developing some partnership agreements when we open 1NT and when opponents then bid something at the one level.

We came up with the idea that if the partner wants the opponent to make the bid sufficient, then partner has no interest in competing but if partner accepts the bid, then we are to proceed with our bidding as if there was no bid (though we now have extra information). Accepting the bid allows for 4 additional opportunities by partner of the 1NT bidder : Pass, Double, 1NT, and Cue-bid.....what we discussed is if the insufficient bid was 1C or 1D, then a accepting and then doing a cue-bid continues to have it's double-barreled Stayman meaning whilst if the insufficient bid was 1H or 1S, we are still discussing what accepting the insufficient bid and then cue-bidding might mean. We also discussed that accepting and then bidding 1NT might be a lebensohl-type bid. We haven't really thought what accepting and then doubling might mean.

As we continued our discussion, we the thought this idea could be expanded to other bids....since we play 2C as an intermediate bid (Precision), an insufficient bid by Opponents could be accepted and then a Pass becomes the 'ask'...Likewise, with our 2D mini-Roman bid, an insufficient bid could be accepted and a Pass then becomes the ask...But I digress and am getting ahead of myself.

I'm curious if anyone has developed partnership agreements over insufficient bids ? I realize these come few and far between, but why not have some agreement and then, what agreements might make sense ? Specifically, I'd like to work on the situation where partner has opened 1NT and his LHO has bid a suit at the 1-level. I would welcome any suggestions.

Clearly, I have too much time on my hands. Thank you

[ArtK78]

It has always been my understanding that a partnership is not permitted to have any conventional agreements over insufficient bids. I am not able to find a specific reference to that principal in the laws.

In the Elections section of the ACBL edition of the laws is the following provision:

7. Law 40B3: A partnership, by prior agreement,may not vary its understanding during the auction or play following a question asked, a response to a question or any irregularity.

I don't know if this covers the situation. It would mean that the partnership's existing methods over a particular bid cannot change if that bid is an insufficient bid. So, on the auction 1NT - (1♥) - ?, presumably the partnership's existing methods for dealing with a "heart overcall" would have to apply to this situation. There could not be any specific methods that apply to a one level overcall of a 1NT opening bid.

I do not know if I am on firm ground here.

[gordontd]

ArtK78, on 2015-May-05, 07:07, said:

It has always been my understanding that a partnership is not permitted to have any conventional agreements over insufficient bids. I am not able to find a specific reference to that principal in the laws.

It's in the law you mention:

Quote

L40 B3. The Regulating Authority may disallow prior agreement by a partnership
to vary its understandings during the auction or play following a
question asked, a response to a question, or any irregularity.

[helene_t]

I would expect
1NT-(1♠)-2♣
to be natural nonforcing. I suppose that regardless of what the regulation says I could do this undiscussed. Could I have an agreement with p to play this way? If so, is it only because 2♣ is a natural bid?

[barmar]

helene_t, on 2015-May-05, 08:28, said:

I would expect
1NT-(1♠)-2♣
to be natural nonforcing. I suppose that regardless of what the regulation says I could do this undiscussed. Could I have an agreement with p to play this way? If so, is it only because 2♣ is a natural bid?

If you do it undiscussed, partner has to guess what it means, which is fine. But if you discuss it, then you're violating the regulation. Also, once it comes up, if you agree to keep playing it that way, you've violated the regulation.

There are some situations that I think fall under bridge logic, so they're OK. If you have an auction like 1♠-(1♥)-1♠, this strongly suggests that responder could be very weak; with a constructive hand, he would have required the overcaller to make his bid sufficient and then bid 2♠.

[Shugart23]

I'm not a lawyer, but I can think of two possible reasons why the quoted regulation may not be applicable to the situation being discussed.

First, insufficient bids aren't necessarily 'irregularities'. They can and do occur. The rules of bridge contemplate that they happen and there are rules that give the next bidder multiple options. Thus, one might argue that insufficient bids are just part of the game...(An irregularity might be " Partner, do you have a void?") So that is my first argument....

My second and perhaps stronger argument, even if one says an insufficient bid is an irregularity, is I am NOT varying anything from my agreement....1NT -(1C) -2C IS Stayman by my partnership agreement which the opener will alert...

[barmar]

We had a discussion about it in the Laws forum a few weeks ago. I believe I convinced everyone that the Laws indicate that an insufficient bid is an irregularity. They're "part of the game" like revokes and bids/leads out of turn are -- they're irregularities, and the Laws explain what to do after they occur.

http://www.bridgebas...post__p__837726

[Shugart23]

Well, I agree that was the weaker of the two arguments....What of the second ? I am not varying anything; If I knew how to write a computer program, I could put in the code...If A happens, then B ....?

[gordontd]

Shugart23, on 2015-May-05, 09:18, said:

I'm not a lawyer, but I can think of two possible reasons why the quoted regulation may not be applicable to the situation being discussed.

First, insufficient bids aren't necessarily 'irregularities'. They can and do occur. The rules of bridge contemplate that they happen and there are rules that give the next bidder multiple options. Thus, one might argue that insufficient bids are just part of the game...(An irregularity might be " Partner, do you have a void?") So that is my first argument....

My second and perhaps stronger argument, even if one says an insufficient bid is an irregularity, is I am NOT varying anything from my agreement....1NT -(1C) -2C IS Stayman by my partnership agreement which the opener will alert...

You play a 2C bid over your RHO's 1C as Stayman?

[Shugart23]

We actually don't do anything yet; this is just a discussion on the legality...If partner opens 1NT and opponents bid 1C (insufficient bid), then a possible partnership agreement could be s to accept the insufficient bid , ignore it, and in this theoretical case, 2C would be Stayman

[aguahombre]

I find Shugart's reasoning quite convincing. Our agreements don't seem to be what varies. They would be the same each time the IB occurred. If the framers want to disallow his proposed agreement (after accepting the IB), it seems they will have to word the rules differently than they are, now.

There are multiple problems with NOT accepting, however.

1) It is unlikely the replacement sufficient bid will be allowed because it probably will have a different meaning.
2) The choice itself, to NOT accept, might well become a prohibited variance or prohibited agreement because the 2-level responses following the offender's replacement or pass would vary from what they would have been.

[blackshoe]

When an insufficient bid is made in rotation, Law 27A1 gives the offender's LHO the right to accept or reject the bid. I think an agreement between partners that removes that decision from the proper player's options would be inconsistent with that law, and therefore illegal. Note that I'm saying nothing about an agreement that if the bid is accepted, systems are on (or off).

It seems odd to have a situation where accepting an IB gives the NOS more options in theory, but then they are prohibited from using those options, or at least from having agreements how to use them. Note that if you can't have agreements about responder's calls over 1NT-(1♣) then all calls are natural. Which means double is for penalties, and 2♣ shows clubs.

[barmar]

Shugart23, on 2015-May-05, 09:30, said:

Well, I agree that was the weaker of the two arguments....What of the second ? I am not varying anything; If I knew how to write a computer program, I could put in the code...If A happens, then B ....?

If you play that 2♣ is Stayman, then you're not varying your agreements, so it's not a problem.

Actually, what's interesting here is that many partnerships have an agreement like "systems on over double and 2♣", and other options (e.g. Lebensohl) over anything else. The accepted IB is not double or 2♣, which implies that the "anything else" agreement should be used. But what they probably intended when they made that agreement is to play systems on whenever the whole 2 level is still available, which is also the case when the interference is insufficient. But they made their agreement in terms of legal bids, and from that perspective both formulations are equivalent.

[ggwhiz]

helene_t, on 2015-May-05, 08:28, said:

I would expect
1NT-(1♠)-2♣
to be natural nonforcing. I suppose that regardless of what the regulation says I could do this undiscussed. Could I have an agreement with p to play this way? If so, is it only because 2♣ is a natural bid?

How can you not vary your agreements here? Is 1nt lebensohl or to play? 2nt is?

I agree that detailed agreements in depth may be foul or are certainly a waste of time the non offending side could be at a serious disadvantage without some basic meta rules in place.

On second thought, the answer is easy. Don't accept the bid and stay legal.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2015-May-05, 08:38, said:

If you do it undiscussed, partner has to guess what it means, which is fine. But if you discuss it, then you're violating the regulation. Also, once it comes up, if you agree to keep playing it that way, you've violated the regulation.

I have wondered what people playing under such regulations do. OK, the first time you do it one way, then the next the opposite in order not to have an implicit agreement... but now you are out of options? What do you do the third time? Is there any call you can make?

Shugart23, on 2015-May-05, 09:18, said:

I'm not a lawyer, but I can think of two possible reasons why the quoted regulation may not be applicable to the situation being discussed.

I can think of a third -- maybe you are not in the ACBL?

[Shugart23]

Alas, I am in the ACBL...But I actually remain unconvinced that I cannot have an agreement with my partner as to a meaning of a bid (alertable, of course)...

1NT by partner -(1C) insufficient and accepted - 1NT by me....Are those who are in the opposite camp saying that my 1NT bid is banned ? Or are they saying I can bid 1NT but I better not have any kind of understanding as to what it means with my partner ? Either view seems patently ridiculous on its face....Of course I can accept the insufficient bid and of course I can bid 1NT..Of course my partner shouldn't have to guess for it to be a legal bid.

Or if the bidding goes 1NT -(1C) -2C, people seem to be saying that 2C is natural.....oh, so that partnership agreement is ok, but Stayman is not ? Again, makes no sense

Can we maybe agree to disagree and move make to my original question ? Assume it is legal, what is a good partnership agreement where bidding has gone 1NT (1 of a minor; accepted) - ?, where ? is either a double, a cue bid, a pass , or 1NT

And then 2nd question where bidding has gone 1NT -(1 of a Major, accepted_ -? where ? is pass, double, 1NT, or cue bid.

[Trick13]

I had thought, after reading this, article, by an Australian Chief Director that such an agreement would be legal, but on a re-reading I see it is not saying that. It would be strange if you were allowed to accept an IB but not ascribe meaning to any bids after that. Even so, I see plenty of scope for misunderstanding here, so perhaps a simple rule - if you accept an IB your next bid is natural and forcing - might be best.

[blackshoe]

The law says you're not allowed to vary your agreements. That means you can't change them. But when RHO makes an insufficient bid, and you accept it, you can makes any of several calls that you could not have made absent the IB. For those calls you would not, a priori, have an agreement. So you are not "varying" an agreement, even if you make some prior agreement about what those bids mean, and bid according to those agreements. What you can't do is change the meanings of calls that would have been legal if RHO had passed*. Of course, given the ACBL's propensity for Humpty Dumpty interpretations of words ("words mean what I want them to mean, neither more nor less") that may not be the interpretation ACBL puts on this law. As for other RAs, who knows?

* This means, of course, that if after 1NT-(P) 2♣ is Stayman, then after 1NT-(1♣ accepted), 2♣ must still be Stayman.

[aguahombre]

ggwhiz, on 2015-May-05, 16:05, said:

On second thought, the answer is easy. Don't accept the bid and stay legal.

That cannot be the right view.

1) If the IB'r then passes, you break even -- having only the tools you started with.
2) If the IB'r makes a sufficient bid, even one which bars his partner, you lose bidding room.

Even if you don't feel it is "cricket" to take legal advantage of an opponent's infraction, you certainly don't have to screw yourself.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2015-May-05, 18:13, said:

As for other RAs, who knows?

Other RAs permit varying one's agreements, so the question does not arise.